What is a hate organization?
The Babylon Bee was a satirical news website, like The Onion, that was deplatformed (censored) from Twitter for making a joke about a trans person.
Hate is often defined on these platforms as speech that can cause offense to some people.
It's not relevant to this paper.
There was a joke attached, not that this is at all relevant — they were using humor to highlight the absurd.
What's that, precisely?
What is your goal with this line of argument. This looks a lot like devils advocacy. Like, what good comes from someone saying: "There's actually no such thing as hate-organizations." (Something you never said).
According to some people, they’re advocating for actively harming people.
According to others, they’re advocating for preventing harm.
It depends on how they do it. Advocating for something is not hate
Here's a question for you: do you consider so-called "TERFs" to be a hate-group?
And here's another: what do you do with the fact that the very notion of violence is being redefined to include such things as misgendering people?
So I ask you this: are you really suggesting it's unreasonable to view this kind of research with caution and circumspection?
Because if it's a logical OR, butchers might fall into the first 2 categories.
And the last part is not very enlightening to define a hate group as it also uses the word hate again
What is the purpose of this line of argumentation? Would you take the position that there are no such things as hate-organizations or hate-speech?
The world is plainly better off with fewer organizations like the KKK and ISIS. Do you agree? That seems like as milquetoast as one can get.
Are there organizations that you feel are labeled as hate-groups but are not? What hairs are we trying to split?
Also, I don't this paper is talking about the KKK or ISIS since I don't think they have a had presence on a social platform for quite a while.
Obviously also there are plenty of organizations that are labeled as hate by some people and other people disagree with it. Look up this week's controversy about SPLC for some examples, but they are in no way unique. You think of it as splitting hairs because you can't imagine how people can disagree with what you imagine to be obvious. But it's not as obvious as you think.
If a person or organization calls for violence or the destruction of property, they are a terrorist organization. If the reasons they give for this are based on identity they are additionally a hate-group.
Seems pretty clear to me. A world with less moral clarity here is one with more (necessarily?) violence and destruction. Why do you think this line of argumentation is either morally permissable, or even virtuous? What argument convinced you?
Are Martin Luther King or Malcolm X terrorists?
US Army has left the chat. All the militaries in the world joined them. The police and the FBI are not far behind.
> Why do you think this line of argumentation is either morally permissable,
Which "this" line? Questioning your definitions? I don't think I need anybody's permission for that.
But wait. Let's say the KKK 3.5, freshly reorganized, does not call for violence and destruction of property of Jews and black people. Make no mistake, they still hate them and think they are sub-human and should be oppressed and ultimately eliminated, but they are now vowed to act through strictly non-violent means - education, propaganda, investment, protest, boycotts, electioneering, lawmaking if they could make it - but no freelance violence. And, also, they are called LLL now, just because. By your definitions, they are not a hate group anymore? If yes, then what criteria did you use and why didn't you initially include them?
It's a lazy, imprecise term that is only ever used in political spats, never to address actual intergroup violence. Personally I suspect the demand for hate groups to exist - thereby justifying the many orgs and careers built on countering it - far exceeds the genuine supply.
Group X is a hate organization if it explicity or implicity advocates, promotes, supports, or works toward the destruction of another group Y, with one or more of the following being true:
- the reasons for the destruction are based on criteria that Y was born with and cannot change,
- the reasons for the destruction are based on unproven, unprovable, or false claims, by X, targeting Y, that Y will destroy X. X may claim Y will destroy X through Y's very existence, through specific or vague planned action, or through attempts to rally, proselytize, or persuade. Claims may be but not limited to being scientific, economic or religious in nature.
- group X believes it is receiving a mandate to commit the same to Y, due to an unproven, unprovable, or false claim that it has received a mandate, or one or more risen ringleaders in X have issued such a mandate based on a similar unproven, unprovable, or false claim.
and often:
- Ringleaders of X may be leveraging/exploiting/extorting one, some, or all of the following aspects of group members: emotions, faith, economic status, state of happiness, or threshold of accepting something as true without personally witnessing. The purpose of the manipulation is to align members of X towards action. Propaganda-like techniques may be employed.
(Posted in the expectation that someone will be along soon with a bucket and mop).
They know that "hate" can be redefined in any manner as they wish, and if they can correlate hate <=> censorship is beneficial, and they can correlate anything-I-don't-like <=> hate, then they can correlate anthing-I-don't-like <=> censorship is beneficial. But they want to pretend you're the "sea lion" in some moronic comic as an ironic shorthand to disrupt and short-circuit a serious conversation on censorship.
1: https://theconversation.com/the-inherent-racism-of-anti-vaxx...
2: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/eric-clapt...
3: https://www.theedgemedia.org/purebloods-anti-semitism-white-...